Brief for the Respondents in Opposition — Westinghouse Electric Corp. v. Bulldog Electric Products Co.

FILED

NOV 20 1953

Supreme Court of the United States

OCTOBER TERM, 1953

—~—_

No. 424

—4—___.

WESTINGHOUSE ELECTRIC CORPORATION,

& corporation,

Petitioner

v.

BULLDOG ELECTRIC PRODUCTS COMPANY,

a corporation,

Respondent

—_>-—__..

ON PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE

UNITED STATES CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS

POR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

—p~——_—.

BRIEF FOR RESPONDENT IN OPPOSITION

a cee

Artuur W. Dickey,

S. Everne Bycutnsky,

7—141 General Motors ‘Building,

Detroit 2, Michigan,

Counsel for Respondent.

Interstate Brit & Record Co., 642 Beaubien S¢., Detroit 26, Michigan

I. Opinions Below

Il. Jurisdiction

Aad isle DK tat hes ooh oe ST ee eee

Te OES CREED Woh eee See Slee Be eg aa

ORR © R90 8 6M St OO 6 eS

Se OUR Bye 08 ES OIG CS w! Lob alee ly abe eras

There is no Conflict of Decision Between

Courts of Appeal for Different Circuits

With Respect to the Validity or Infringe-

ment of the Hodgkins Patent or the Jen-

nings Patent

ASS APO OS CORO. HG, 606 areal ELS oc

The Decision of the Court Below is not in

Conflict With the Applicable Decisions of

This Court Regarding (a) Construction of

Patent Claims, (b) What Constitutes Pat-

entable Invention, and (c) Priority of In-

vention Between Rival Inventors........

The Seope and Validity of the Hodgkins,

Jennings and Swingle Patents are not of

Great Importance

© wR Bee 0 06 6200 Oe 6 Oe aS

VI. Conclusions

PE eS SO OEE gS EE AS Be ke Do ie ee ae

CITATIONS

DeCew v. Union Bag and Paper Corp., 57 Fed. Supp.

388, 399-400 (D. C. N. J.)

OOO O'S. 016 6:6 ~ 6. oN 6 Owe ee

Eibel Process Co. vy. Minnesota & Ontario Paper

Co., 261 U. S. 45, 63

Frank Adam Electric Cu. vy. Colt’s Patent Fire

Arms Mfg. Co., 148 F. (2d) 497 (C. C. A. 8)...

10

14

16

15

13

eee 10-11, 13

9

Graver Tank & Mfg. Co. v. Linde Air Products Co.,

Leahman Co. of America v. Kroll Brothers Co., 139

F. (2d) 391, 398 (C. C. A. 7)

Marconi Wireless Telegraph Co. v. United States,

320 U. S. 1, 34

Murray-Ohio Manufacturing Co. v. E. C. Brown Co.,

124 F. (2d) 426, 428 (C. C. A. 6)

Westinghouse v. Boyden Power Brake Co., 170 U.

S. 537 .

Westinghouse Electric & Mfg. Co. v. Frank Adam

Electric Co., 146 F. (24) 165 (C. C. A. 8)

Page

11

15

14

15

Supreme Court of the United States

OCTOBER TERM, 1953

—_—_>—__

No. 424

—_——.

WESTINGHOUSE ELECTRIC CORPORATION,

& corporation,

Petitioner

v.

BULLDOG ELECTRIC PRODUCTS COMPANY,

a corporation,

Respondent

—_—_p>—__.

ON PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE :

UNITED STATES CIRCUIT COURT OF APPRALS

POR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

———

_ BRIEF FOR RESPONDENT IN OPPOSITION

satel inl

To the Honorable Chief Justice and Associate Justices of

the Supreme Court of the United States:

I, OPINIONS BELOW

The District Court opinion is reported at 106 Fed. Supp.

819, and that of the Court of Appeals at 206 F. (2d) 574.

Il. JURISDICTION

Jurisdictional requisites are adequately stated in the

petition.

Ill. QUESTIONS PRESENTED

The petition states the formal questions presented,

namely, the questions of validity and infringement of the

three United States Letters Patent. In Hodgkins Patent

No. 2,073,103, the claims in issue specified in the petition

are only 9 of 44 claims ccntained in the patent; in Jennings

Patent No. 2,190,517, the claims in issue specified in the

petition are only 15 of 35 claims contained in the patent;

and in Swingle Patent No. 2,329,362, the claims in issue

specified in the petition are only 16 of the 84 claims con-

tained in the patent. The remaining claims of each patent

were not in issue.

If the petition were granted, respondent, in addition to

defenses against alleged infringement and validity, would

urge also the defense of unclean hands arising out of mis-

use of the patents by petitioner.

IV. STATEMENT

The concurring decisions of the Courts below are based

essentially upon determination of questions of fact. Sub-

stantial evidence in support appears in the record, par-

ticularly the BullDog Appendix, Volume 1, in which pages

29-136 contain testimony respecting the Hodgkins Patent

No. 2,073,103; pages 137-259 respecting the Jennings Pat-

ent No. 2,190,517; and pages 260-358 respecting the Swingle

Patent No. 2,329,362. The petition makes no charge that

3

the determinations of fact by the Courts below are not

supported by substantial evidence in the record.

It was found (District Court findings, Westinghouse Ap-

pendix, pp. 246-249) that: .

In general, circuit breakers of the kind which are the

subject of the patents in suit and the parts that go to make

them up—such as terminals, contacts, fixed and movable,

movable contact— or switch—arms, handles and springs,

and various additional mechanical elements for moving the

contact or switch arm to open and closed position, and

bimetallic and electro-magnetic devices for.providing auto-

~ matic opening of the movable contact or switch arms—

were old and known prior to the patents in suit. (BullDog

Appendix, Volume II, prior art patents, particularly Bri-

tish Patent to Holmes No. 17,888, page 423; United States

Patents to Von Hoorn No. 1,786,796, page 369; Krantz No.

1,726,233, page 361; Laganke No. 1,789,183, page 447; La-

ganke No, 2,025,872, page 487; Getchell No. 1,761,117, page

480; No. 1,759,395, page 473; and No. 1,886,477, page 438;

Jennings No. 1,794,901, page 530; and Taylor No. 2,018,904,

page 493.)

No commercial use has been made of the cireuit breaker

constructions shown in the drawings and described in the

specifications of the Hodgkins patent No. 2,073,103, the

Jennings patent No. 2,190,517, and the Swingle patent No.

2,329,362, in suit. Petitioner’s commercial breakers, Multi-

breaker and Quicklag, bear little or no resemblance to the

circuit breaker éonstructions shown in the drawings and

described in the specifications of these patents. (BullDog

Appendix, Volume I, pp. 101-2, 235-40, 249-50, 275-6, 284-

5, 345-6.)

Petitioner’s Multi-breaker and Quicklag breakers, sales

of which petitioner relies upon for alleged commercial

4

success of the patents in suit, are covered by other patents

not asserted in this suit to be infringed by respondent

(BullDog Appendix, Volume I, pp. 101-4, 236).

Petitioner has granted licenses under its patents for the

manufacture of Multi-breakers and Quicklag breakers, and

that such of those licenses as are in evidence here contain

a large number of circuit breaker patents other thin the

patents asserted in this suit to be infringed (Ex. 59.’, pp.

1-10, 11-16, 12-17, 31-47).

Respondent’s circuit breakers, the Circuit Master and

the Pushmatic, are substantially different in construc-

tion and arrangement of parts from the cireuit breakers

shown in the drawings and described in the specifications

of the patents charged to be infringed (BullDog Appendix,

Volume I, pp. 88-91, 158-160, 330-1, 342 and prior testimony

beginning at 285).

The Circuit Master and Pushmatic also are substantially

different in construction and arrangement of parts from

petitioner’s commercial breakers, the Multi-breaker and

the Quicklag.

Respondent’s Circuit Master and Pushmatie do not copy

or imitate either the breaker constructions shown in the

drawings and described in the specifications of the patents

in suit, or petitioner’s commercial breakers, the Multi-

breaker or the Quicklag.

The detailed findings of the District Court with respect

to the Hodgkins Patent No. 2,073,103 appear in the West-

inghouse Appendix, pp. 278-289; those with respect to the

Jennings Patent No. 2,190,517 appear at pages 289-315;

and those with respect to the Swingle Patent No. 2,329,362

at pages 329-341.

After reviewing the prior art, considering the claims of

the patents in suit alleged to be infringed in their relation

5

to the structures disclosed in the patents in suit, the prior

art and respondent’s circuit breakers alleged to infringe,

the District Court concluded (District Court conclusions 2

and 3, Westinghouse Appendix pp. 357-358) that none of

the patents in suit are pioneer patents entitled to a wide

range of equivalents; that all are improvement patents,

and are to be construed in the light of their respective

specifications and drawings, and of the prior art, and

limited substantially to the devices disclosed in their re-

spective specifications and drawings, and also that re-

spondent’s circuit breakers, Circuit Master and Push-

matic, are not in any material or substantial respect simi-

lar to the devices disclosed in the drawings and specifica-

tions of the patents in suit; and that the drawings and

specifications of those patents fail to suggest the construc-

tion of respondent’s circuit breakers; and that none of the

patents in suit are entitled to any range of equivalents

that will include respondent’s Circuit Master and Push-

matic within their scope; that the claims of those patents

asserted to be infringed, when construed in the light of

the specifications and drawings of the respective patents

in which they are contained and given the meanings there

intended, fail to find any response in respondent’s circuit

breakers.

The District Court’s additional conclusions with specific

reference to the Hodgkins Patent No. 2,073,103, the Jen-

nings Patent No. 2,190,517, and the Swingle Patent No.

2,329,362, are Nos. 6, 7, 8 and 9 (Westinghouse Appendix,

pp. 360-363) and Nos. 13, 14 and 15 (Westinghouse Appen-

dix, pp. 365-367) in which the facts previously found with

respect to the validity and alleged infringement of these

patents are summarized.

With respect to the Hodgkins Patent No. 2,073,103, the

Court of Appeals (Proceedings, Court of Appeals, 4th

Cire., pp. 685-6) in affirming the District Court stated:

6

“Here again we have, at best, a combination

patent in a crowded field. All of the important ele-

ments in Hodgkins, performing substantially the

same functions, may clearly be found in the prior

art cited by the District Judge, especially Laganke,

No. 1,789,183. And particularly germane are the

three cases cited by him in this connection. In-

deed, all that Hodgkins accomplished was a rather

clever arrangement of these elements which pos-

sessed some novelty. Manifestly, this patent must

be precisely limited to that particular arrangement.

As thus limited, all the claims in suit and their

specifications fall far short of patentable inven-

tion. The Hodgkins patent must, therefore, be de-

clared invalid.

**We agree with the District Judge that if, under

a strict construction of its claims and specifications,

the Hodgkins patent should be held valid, it is not

infringed by Pushmatic and Circuit Master, the ac-

eused devices of BullDog. Counsel for Westing-

house strongly stress in parallel columns of their

brief the similarities between Hodgkins, on the one

hand, and Pushmatie and Circuit Master on the

other. Some of these similarities are inconse-

quential. Of many more it may truthfully be said

that these same similarities may be observed when

Hodgkins is compared with the prior art.

“* * * We are also impressed, as was the District

Judge, by the testimony of Professor Hoover, Bull-

Dog’s expert witness, to the effect that there is noth-

ing in the drawings and specifications of the Hodg-

kins patent that would teach how to design or con-

struct the Circuit Master or the Pushmatic.”

With respect to the Jennings Patent No. 2,190,517, the

Court of Appeals (Proceedings, Court of Appeals, 4th

» Pp. 688-9) in affirming the District Court stated:

7

‘*What has been previously said as to the Hodg-

kins patent seems even truer as to the J. ennings

patent. Here, again, we find in the prior art all the

elements in Jennings, with these elements perform-

ing the same functions. This patent, too, is subse-

quent to Hodgkins and Jackson, No. 2,096,546. All

that Jennings has done here is to devise a new ar-

rangement of the old elements, which is, at best a

mere nonpatentable aggregation.

“When, as must be the case, the claims and

specifications of Jennings are strictly construed,

they are not infringed by either Circuit Master or

Pushmatie. * * *”

With respect to the Swingle Patent No. 2,329,362, the

Court of Appeals (Proceedings, Court of Appeals, 4th Cir-

cuit, p. 692) in affirming stated:

‘‘We think the Swingle patent falls in the same

category with, and is subject to the same objections

as, Hodgkins and Jennings. Once more we find in

the prior art all the important elements of Swingle,

all performing the same essential functions. The

chronology and factual circumstances surrounding

its grant seem to strengthen the view that Swingle

discloses no more than a mere nonpatentable aggre-

gation.

“‘Swingle did not originate, and there is nothing

new in automatic overload cireuit breakers in which

all operations are controlled by a single or identical

pair of overcenter springs, a so-called ‘floating’

switch arm operating about two pivot points, a cir-

cuit breaker having two main movable members, a

handle, and a switch arm having a movable contact

rigidly mounted upon it and operated by a single

overcenter spring in both manual and overload op-

erations.’’

The claims in issue of the patents in suit are worded in

vague and general terms. The other claims of those patents

8

directed to the specific improvement disclosed in the draw-

ings and specifications were never charged to be infringed

and are not in issue.

There is no conflict in the decisions of Courts of Appeal

respecting validity or infringement of the Swingle Patent

No. 2,329,362. This patent was not at issue in the case of

Westinghouse v. Frank Adam Electric Co., post, in the 8th

Circuit.

_ With respect to the alleged conflict between Courts of

Appeal regarding the validity of the Hodgkins Patent No.

2,073,103 and the Jennings Patent No. 2,190,517, it appears

clearly in the opinion of the Court of Appeals for the 8th

Cireuit in Westinghouse Electric & Mfg. Co. v. Frank

Adam. Electric Co., 146 F. (2d) 165, that the judgment of

the District Court holding the Hodgkins patent valid and

infringed and Jennings valid but not infringed was not

reviewed or considered by the Court of Appeals. That

Court vacated the judgment and remanded the case to the

District Court with instructions to take evidence on the

issue of unclean hands arising out of alleged misuse of

the patents. The record in the case at bar does not disclose

that the judgment of the District Court in the Westing-

house v. Adam case was ever reinstated. It is conceded by

petitioner that the case was settled between the parties

after remand. The record of the case at bar does not dis-

close the circuit breaker construction found to infringe the

Hodgkins patent nor what claims of either the Hodgkins

patent or the Jennings patent were found valid or in-

fringed by the District Court in Missouri, nor the con-

siderations upon which such findings were made.

Vv. ARGUMENT

There is no Conflict of Decision Between Courts ‘of Appeal

for Different Circuits With Respect to the Validity

or Infringement of the Hodgkins Patent or

the Jennings Patent

The Court of Appeals for the 8th Cireuit did not con-

sider or pass upon or render decision with respect to the

validity or infringement of either of those patents. It

is clear from its opinion, 146 F (2d) 165, that there can

be no inference whatever that it upheld the validity or

infringement of those patents, in the face of the fact that

it vacated the judgment of the District Court holding such

patents valid.

As a matter of interest, the Court of Appeals for the 8th

Circuit three months later in a different case, Frank Adam

Electric Co. v. Colt’s Patent Fire Arms Mfg. Co., 148 F.

(2d) 497, in reversing the District Court and holding in-

valid for want of invention other patents in the circuit

breaker art contemporaneous with those in the case at

bar, found (p. 500) the circuit breaker art crowded almost

to the point of suffocation.

It is apparent that petitioner’s ground for certiorari

based upon conflict of decisions of different Courts of Ap-

peal is without foundation, and that its argument that the

Court of Appeals for the 8th Circuit accepted by logical

inference the District Court judgment of validity which it

vacated, is without foundation or support in the record.

10

The Decision of the Court Below is not in Conflict With the

Applicable Decisions of This Court Regarding (a)

Construction of Patent Claims, (b) What Con-

stitutes Patentable Invention, and (c)

Priority of Invention Between

Rival Inventors

The petitioner avers that the Court of Appeals ignored

the wording of the claims and held that there is no infringe-

ment because of mere differences of form which are not

specified iu the claims, and that this makes a nullity of

these claims and is contrary to the cited decisions of this

Court.

The Courts below have not ignored the wording of the

claims in issue of the patents in suit. Those claims are

couched in broad, general and vague terms, susceptible of

broad or narrow interpretation depending upon the facts

found with respect to the nature and extent of invention

disclosed in the drawings and specifications of the patents

when assessed in comparison with and in the light of the

prior art.

The Courts below found the nature and extent of the

alleged inventions of the patents over and in view of the

prior art to be very narrow and limited, and in consider-

ing the question of infringement construed the vague and

general terms of the claims accordingly. It gave those

terms the meaning required when applied to the specific

constructions disclosed in the drawings and specifications

of the patents in which they are contained, and so construed

found them not to cover or be infringed by the substantially

different constructions and arrangements of respondent’s

circuit breakers.

In this the Courts below did not come in conflict with

applicable decisions of this Court. In a leading decision of

this Court in Eibel Process Co. v. Minnesota & Ontario

11

Paper Co., 261 U. S. 45, 63, this Court defined the prin-

ciples to be observed in administering the Patent Law and

stated :

“In administering the Patent Law the court first

looks into the art, to find what the real merit of the

alleged discovery or invention is, and whether it

has advanced the art substantially; and if it has

done so, the court is liberal in its construction of

the patent to secure to the inventor the reward he

deserves.

“If what a patentee has done works only a slight

step forward, and that which he says is a discovery

is on the borderline between mere mechanical

change and real invention, the patent, if sustained,

will be given narrow scope, and infringement will be

found only in approximate copies of the new de-

vice,’’

In the case at bar the Courts below found as a matter of

fact that the patents-contained little if any invention over

the prior art and accordingly gave them a narrow scope

and refused to find infringement by respondent’s breakers

which were substantially different from and found not to

be approximate copies of the breakers disclosed in the

patents.

This is not in conflict with decisions of this Court re-

ferred to in the petition as the nature and extent ot the

inventions of the patents here in suit are found to be of

little, if any merit, while the nature and extent of the

inventions of the patents involved in the cases cited by

petitioner were found to be of substantial merit.

Petitioner quotes the decision of this Court in Graver

Tank & Mfg. Co. v. Linde Air Products Co., 339 U. S. 605-

607, in that part of the opinion which states that if the ac-

cused matter falls clearly within the words of the claim,

12

infringement is made out and that is the end of it, and

that imitation of a patented invention which does not copy

every literal detail does not avoid infringement.

The part of that opinion quoted by petitioner is not ap-

plicable in the case at bar for the reason that in the cited

ease the Courts below in concurring decisions had found

substantial and meritorious invention over the prior art

in the patent involved.

In the case at bar the Courts below have concurred in

finding that there is no such invention in the claims in

issue of the patents in suit.

_ Farthermore, petitioner in its reliance upon the Graver

v. Linde ease, ignores the fact that the decision, at page

609, recognizes the established rule stated and applied in

Westinghouse v. Boyden Power Brake Co., 170 U. S. 537,

to the effect that infringement is not made out even though

the accused device corresponds with the letter of the claims

of the patent asserted to be infringed where the accused

device is so far changed in principle from the patented

article that it performs the same or similar function in a

substantially different way, but nevertheless falls within

the literal words of the claim.

The Courts below in the case at bar have concurred in

finding that respondent’s accused cireuit breakers are so

different from the circuit breakers shown in the drawings

and disclosed in the specifications of the patents in suit

that they do not infringe even though they might be brought

within the vague and general terminology of the claims

asserted, as petitioner endeavored to do.

Petitioner’s argument that it is error to limit the claims

in issues of the Swingle patent to a device having two

operating springs on the ground that the second spring

is essential to the operative structure disclosed in the

13

drawings and specification of the patent, in view of the

decision of this Court in Deering v. Winona Harvester

Works, 155 U. 8. 286, 302, takes no account of the fact

that in Deering v. Winona (p. 302) the device described

by the claim there involved was a pivotal extension to a

butt-adjuster newly invented by the patentee and required

only conventional means to carrry out its operation, while

in the case at bar the Courts below have concurred in

finding not only that Swingle did not disclose invention of

a device that would operate with a single spring, but also

that circuit breakers of the same character operated by a

single overcenter spring were old in the art, that Swingle

was not entitled in view of the art to predicate inven-

tion upon that feature, and that respondent’s circuit

breaker followed the constructions of the prior art and

not that of Swingle.

Petitioner’s argument that the decision of the Court

of Appeals that the claims in issue of Hodgkins, Jennings

and Swingle are invalid for want of patentable invention

is contrary to the principles announced by this Court in the

decisions cited in the petition, is in error in that it fails

to recognize that in the cases cited the Court found the

inventions involved to have substantially advanced the

art, whereas in the case at bar the Courts below have con-

curred in finding that the patents in suit have not sub-

stantially advanced the art and are but slightly different

arrangements of old devices and that respondent has not

copied or imitated these arrangements in its circuit break-

ers.

As stated before (pp. 10-11) in the very decision of

Etbel Process Co. v. Minnesota & Ontario Paper Co., 261

U. S. 45, upon which petitioner relies, the Court stated

that where the discovery of the patent is on the borderline

between mere mechanical change and real invention the

14

patent, if sustained, will be given a narrow scope and ‘in-

fringement found only in approximate copies of the device.

In the case at bar the Courts below have concurred in

finding as fact little or no invention in the claims in issue

of the patents in suit in view of the prior art.

Petitioner’s contention that the holding that the Jen-

nings patent in suit is anticipated by the work of Christen-

sen is contrary to decision of this Court in Marconi Wire-

less Telegraph Co. v. United States, 320 U. S. 1, 34, hold-

_ ing that one who was the first to conceive and did not aban-

don his invention is the prior inventor, ignores the fact

that the Courts below concurred in the holding that Jen-

nings is not shown by any corroborated evidence to have

conceived the invention involved in October, 1935, as peti-

tioner statés, or prior to June 5, 1936, which was after con-

ception and reduction to practice of the invention by

Christensen. (District Court findings, Westinghouse Ap-

pendix, pp. 297-299; District Court conclusions Nos. 8

and 9, Westinghouse Appendix, pp. 362-363; Evidenee,

BullDog Appendix, Volume Ill; Westinghouse Appendix,

pp. 101-123).

The Scope and Validity of the Hodgkins, Jennings and Swingle

Patents are Not of Great Importance

Petitioner’s argument that the Seope and validity of the

Hodgkins, Jennings and Swingle patents are of great im-

portance because of the large volume of business involved,

the number of licensees under the patents, and the deter-

rent effect of existing uncertainty upon further develop-

ment of the circuit breaker industry, is unfounded and

without support in the record.

It is conceded that no circuit breakers of the construc-

tion shown in the drawings and described in the specifi-

15

cations of these patents have ever been produced commer-

cially by either petitioner or its licensees. It is conceded

that petitioner’s commercial breakers, the Multi-breaker

and Quicklag, alleged to be made under these patents, are

covered by other patents not involved in this suit, and that

the licenses under which these commercial breakers are

made by others include a large number of other patents

which are not here involved. (Statement, p. 3-4.)

There is no evidence in the record establishing that the

large volume of business in Multi-breaker and Quicklag

cireuit breakers is due to the patents in suit, rather than

to other patents covering those breakers which are not

in suit.

In these circumstances commercial success of the Multi-

breaker and the Quicklag cannot be attributed to the pat-

ents in suit or the cireuit breaker constructions disclosed

therein, nor can those patents rightly be said to be of great

commercial importance.

Murray-Ohio Manufacturing Co. v. E. C. Brown

Co., 124 F. (2d) 426, 428, (C. C. A. 6) ;

Leahman Co. of America v. Kroll Brothers Co.,

139 F. (2d) 391, 393 (C. C. A. 7);

DeCew v. Union Bag and Paper Corp., 57 Fed.

Supp. 388, 399-400 (D. C. N. J.).

There is nothing in the decisions of the Courts below

which prevents or precludes the manufacture of circuit

breakers by the industry, or which prevents or precludes

petitioner from making new developments or inventions in

circuit breakers, or which prevents or precludes petitioner

from selling or any in the industry from taking licenses

under petitioner’s patents if they so desire.

16

VI. CONCLUSIONS

For the foregoing reasons it is respectfully submitted |

that the petition for writ of certiorari should be denied.

| Respectfully submitted,

ARTHUR W. DICKEY,

S. EUGENE BYCHINSKY,

Counsel for Respondent.

Dated: November ..., 1953.

’

.

OL DN MTR Sen Re Te eee ee

baa GE a

g

Cases Crtep.

PAGE

A. & P. Tea Co. v. Supermarket Co., 340 U. S. 147, 155-6 1

Concrete Appliances Co. v. Gomery, 269 U.S.177,180.. 4

Frank Adam Electric Co. v. Colt’s Patent Fire Arms

ee oy OP. OE. es 3

Koochook v. Barrett, 158 F. 2d 463.................. 3

Sanitary Refrigerator Co. v. Winters et al., 280 U. S.

ee SISNET eS aR RRB Ss 4

Smith v. Snow, 294 U.S. Ne ARS REGS SE co ees 2

Thomson Co. v. Ford Motor Co., 265 U. S. 445,447... 4

Westinghouse Electric & Mfg. Co. v. Frank Adam

Electric Co. (C. A. Opinion, 146 F. 2d 165)........ 2